Role of Navy in Iraq: IA

[SteveG75]

I voted yes because I have done my IA so all you suckers can do one as well.

But seriously, the Navy has a lot of folks deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. And, we are doing missions that are Navy specific or that we have more people with the required skill set. Examples are SeaBees, Riverine Squadrons, CREW (Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare), C-RAM (Phalanx on a trailer), Medical, etc. In addition, staff work on a joint staff means that anyone can contribute.

We are not putting JG's in tanks or driving trucks. We are using our skills to help the Army and the Marines.

After being back for 4 months and looking back, I would have to say that my 11 months in country was possibly the most rewarding time of my 17 years in the Navy. Not the most fun. Not the hardest. Not the easiest. But, even though it is hard to prove a negative, I am sure that the group I worked with saved some Marines' and soldiers's lives. And that was worth the PITA of the NAvy IA process.

 

[Afterburner76]

Where are you getting this info that the National Guard was not intended to deploy overseas? It's participated in every major war since its federalization as an army reserve in 1903.

Perhaps if you trace back to colonial days, but what relevance does that have to today?

I'll give you that. However, the current model doesn't show us using the Guard for it's intended purpose (and that's a huge problem... we're spreading so thin we are calling up everyone and their mothers). Currently, over 30 percent of the Army forces now in

Iraq are Army National Guard members.​

According to the GAO, "The heavy reliance on National Guard forces for overseas and homeland missions since September 2001 has resulted in readiness problems which suggest that the current business model for the Army National Guard is not sustainable over time...the Army National Guard was organized as a strategic reserve to be used primarily in the later stages of a conflict after receiving additional personnel, equipment and training. Therefore, in peacetime Army National Guard units did not have all the equipment and personnel they would need to perform their wartime missions. However, over 70,000 Guard personnel are now deployed for federal missions, with thousands more activated to respond to recent natural disasters. To provide ready forces, the Guard transferred large numbers of personnel and equipment among units, thereby exacerbating existing personnel and equipment shortages of non-deployed units. As a result, the preparedness of non-deployed units for future missions is declining."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06170t.pdf


Sorry for straying way off topic... but as I said earlier, it's a very complex subject. So many things are intertwined.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

How the OP phrased it, however, is that if something doesn't fall within your "intended purpose" it shouldn't be your responsibility, which is just a terribly territorial way of looking at it. Whatever happened to "One team One fight"?

Oh, you mean like when the airwing hides out in their staterooms during GQ? No, now that I think about it, that's probably not what you meant.

 

[MasterBates]

Oh, you mean like when the HSL DET hides out in their staterooms during GQ? No, now that I think about it, that's probably not what you meant.

Actually, I think it was in SOP as "stay out of the way".. And don't break crew rest :icon_smil

 

[bert]

Oh, you mean like when the airwing hides out in their staterooms during GQ? No, now that I think about it, that's probably not what you meant.

Now that was clever.

But you asked for it.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Your opinino might mean something if it were coming from a commissioned officer.

I'm hoping you're joking.

 

[scoober78]

...and I suppose that nobody should join the Marine Corps because they aren't designed to sharpshoot from the fighting tops.:sleep_125

Seriously, I am sympathetic to where you are going with this question, but your stated logic and reasoning is terribly frail. IMHO, it is worth talking about...

 

[bunk22]

I'm hoping you're joking.

Nope not joking what so ever. Of course I was wrong, he is commissioned. Got an issue with it?

 

[Hozer]

After being back for 4 months and looking back, I would have to say that my 11 months in country was possibly the most rewarding time of my 17 years in the Navy. Not the most fun. Not the hardest. Not the easiest. But, even though it is hard to prove a negative, I am sure that the group I worked with saved some Marines' and soldiers's lives. And that was worth the PITA of the NAvy IA process.

That echoes what I've heard from others. Did you volunteer?

I volunteered for an IA, but they would not let me go with my divorce in progress. Then I got picked up for the E2C2 transition, and now CNATRA owns my ass...

My bro got tagged for his IA checking in for his post-dh tour at Corpus.

 

[Afterburner76]

...and I suppose that nobody should join the Marine Corps because they aren't designed to sharpshoot from the fighting tops.:sleep_125

Seriously, I am sympathetic to where you are going with this question, but your stated logic and reasoning is terribly frail. IMHO, it is worth talking about...

that's not the point. There IS Marine Aviation. Just like there IS Navy SpecOps, SpecWar, Seabees, and other "ground type" billets that are filled by "ground type" personnel who chose that path. You wouldn't take an Army tank driver and say, oh, by the way, you're going to be a Quartermaster on a Coast Guard cutter next year because blah blah blah...

 

[The Chief]

Your opinino might mean something if it were coming from a commissioned officer.

Wow! But upon reflection WoW

 

[SteveG75]

That echoes what I've heard from others. Did you volunteer?

Volun-told along with an O-5 in my command. EW expertise being Prowler guys.

 

[boobcheese]

I'm a bit surprised at the results of this poll thus far. I understand the concept of "one team one fight" and if in the short term navy types can help fill the gaps and alleviate some of the pressure on the guys doing multiple tours, then so be it. But the poll asks "Should IA be a part of the Navy's future?". To this I would have to say no. The IA system seems like a short term fix to a long term problem. I would hope that the future manning of the military is better matched to the demands being placed on it.

 

[Afterburner76]

I would hope that the future manning of the military is better matched to the demands being placed on it.

Agreed. I think that's the most important point of all.


I too, am surprised at the poll. Not the answers per se, but more the lack of responses. With well over 1000 views and only 30 votes? Let's see some action up there!

 

[robav8r]

But the poll asks "Should IA be a part of the Navy's future?". To this I would have to say no. The IA system seems like a short term fix to a long term problem. I would hope that the future manning of the military is better matched to the demands being placed on it.

In the short term, I would agree with you. But a cursory review of modern history shows we have done many of the same things in past conflicts. The easy argument here is that we shouldn't have folks who have spent their entire Navy career on a ship at sea, participating in convoy duty or CIED patrols in Iraq & Afghanistan. But the "Augmentee" part is actually helping the folks who need it the most - the Army and Marine Corps. Do we need more of the "right" kind of personnel on the ground in certain places? Absolutely, but beyond that the conversation must stop for obvious reasons.

In the long term, I think our leadership (CJCS, COCOM CDR's, CNO) have the experience and leadership to know that we can make sigificant inroads to how we train and operate in the joint environment. We're learning a tremendous amount (in the Navy) about true interoperability with our sister services and what we need to know for the future. So yes, having the IA billets in the detailers tool box will be a good thing, as long as they are used in a manner which make us a better, more effective force when enjaged in joint warfare.

. . . .just my .02c